Structure of New York State Criminal Courts

In New York State:

  • supreme court and county court handles all matters, felonies mostly;
  • City court, town court and village courts are everywhere except New York City; they only handle misdemeanors and violations.
  • District courts are only located in Nassau and Suffolk counties (at Long Island); they only handle misdemeanors and violations.

Online resources for the case of LabMD Inc. v. FTC (11th Cir.) and the FTC’s response after the decision

Did the LabMD Case Weaken the FTC’s Approach to Data Security?

Comment: The LabMD Decision Reins in the FTC’s Authority to Issue Broadly Worded and Ill-Defined Orders
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/labmd-decision-reins-ftc-s-authority-to-issue-broadly-worded-and-ill-defined-orders

FTC Official Website
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/102-3099/labmd-inc-v-federal-trade-commission

LabMD, Inc., In the Matter of
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/102-3099/labmd-inc-matter 

Tom Kulik: The 3 Biggest Data Security Takeaways From The 11th Circuit Decision In FTC v. LabMD
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/the-3-biggest-data-security-takeaways-from-the-11th-circuit-decision-in-ftc-v-labmd/

Kirk Nahra: Takeaways from the 11th Circuit FTC vs. LabMD decision
https://iapp.org/news/a/takeaways-from-the-11th-circuit-ftc-vs-labmd-decision/

By Jim Harvey, Larry Sommerfeld and Kate Hanniford: LabMD: The End of the FTC in Cyber, or Just a New Path?
https://www.alston.com/-/media/files/insights/publications/2018/07/183465-labmd-client-alert.pdf

Dune Lawrence: A Leak Wounded This Company. Fighting the Feds Finished It Off
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-labmd-ftc-tiversa/

After the 11th Cir. decision, FTC tried to be more specific: 

LightYear Dealer Technologies, LLC, In the Matter of
www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/172-3051/lightyear-dealer-technologies-llc-matter-0

FTC Administrative Guidelines (non-binding) 
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/protecting-personal-information-guide-business 

FTC Proposed Amendment to the GLB Rules.

董皓:在变迁的文化中保护和促进人权

豆按:此文初稿写于2003年,北京航空航天大学西门外的一个网吧,十五元一晚,外带夜宵。为保持页面美观,制作成了PDF文档,请下载阅读。
 
 
在变迁的文化中保护和促进人权:基于民族文化个案的实证研究*
 
董  皓
 
声明:本文经修改后发表于郑永流主编《法哲学与法社会学论丛》第七卷,中国政法大学出版社,2005。作者保留本文的信息网络传播权,未经作者书面授权,任何网站不得转载本文,也不得通过本文营利。
 
 
每一个社会每时每刻都在经历着变迁的过程;每一个社会每时每刻都在经历着某种不一致和冲突;社会中的每一要素都对社会的分解和变迁发生着重要作用。[①]
——达伦多夫(Dahrendorf)
 
  [内容摘要] 本文首先阐述了当前人权法研究中对“文化”的双重使用所造成的困惑,然后通过七个民族文化个案的实证研究,分析了文化相对主义和人权普世论各自存在的问题,并得出以下结论:(1)文化是在不断发生着变迁的文化,这种变迁对人们的实际权利有重大影响;(2)特定民族和地区的文化在变迁过程中,既可能偶然地符合现代人权标准,也可能对现代人权保障的实现构成障碍;(3)国家意志能够并一直影响着文化的变迁;(4)通过国家意志的影响,民族传统文化有可能在变迁中将现代人权观念主动纳入自己的体系中;(5)保护特定民族的文化和在该民族地区保护其它人权之间并没有不可逾越的鸿沟;(6)在注意到民族文化可以为国家意志所影响的同时,必须时刻牢记民族文化的变迁总要以原有的文化为基础和出发点;(7)人权领域对“民族文化权利”的保护,应该既保护既存的文化现象,又保护文化自主发展,这是国家用现代人权思想逐步影响民族文化的变迁的前提;(8)对民族文化的保护本身有可能对民族文化的进一步变迁产生影响。
 
  [关键词] 人权法、文化、变迁、实证研究、少数民族
 
 
* 本文最初为参加2003年欧盟国际人权法教师进修班的作业,经过多次修改后于2005年刊发。感谢郑永流教授、侯西勋教授、王启梁博士、班文战教授及人权法教师进修班上诸位老师的细致建议和批评。
 
本文引用方式:董皓:“在文化的变迁中保护和促进人权:基于民族文化个案的实证研究”,郑永流主编《法哲学与法社会学论丛》(七),中国政法大学出版社2005,第280-302页,文献获取自:http://www.BlawgDog.com(2007年12月11日最后访问)。
 
 
tags:人权,文化,实证研究,少数民族
豆按:此文初稿写于2003年,北京航空航天大学西门外的一个网吧,十五元一晚,外带夜宵。
在变迁的文化中保护和促进人权:基于民族文化个案的实证研究*
董  皓
每一个社会每时每刻都在经历着变迁的过程;每一个社会每时每刻都在经历着某种不一致和冲突;社会中的每一要素都对社会的分解和变迁发生着重要作用。[①]
——达伦多夫(Dahrendorf)
  [内容摘要] 本文首先阐述了当前人权法研究中对“文化”的双重使用所造成的困惑,然后通过七个民族文化个案的实证研究,分析了文化相对主义和人权普世论各自存在的问题,并得出以下结论:(1)文化是在不断发生着变迁的文化,这种变迁对人们的实际权利有重大影响;(2)特定民族和地区的文化在变迁过程中,既可能偶然地符合现代人权标准,也可能对现代人权保障的实现构成障碍;(3)国家意志能够并一直影响着文化的变迁;(4)通过国家意志的影响,民族传统文化有可能在变迁中将现代人权观念主动纳入自己的体系中;(5)保护特定民族的文化和在该民族地区保护其它人权之间并没有不可逾越的鸿沟;(6)在注意到民族文化可以为国家意志所影响的同时,必须时刻牢记民族文化的变迁总要以原有的文化为基础和出发点;(7)人权领域对“民族文化权利”的保护,应该既保护既存的文化现象,又保护文化自主发展,这是国家用现代人权思想逐步影响民族文化的变迁的前提;(8)对民族文化的保护本身有可能对民族文化的进一步变迁产生影响。
  [关键词] 人权法、文化、变迁、实证研究、少数民族
 * 本文最初为参加2003年欧盟国际人权法教师进修班的作业,经过多次修改后于2005年刊发。感谢郑永流教授、侯西勋教授、王启梁博士、班文战教授及人权法教师进修班上诸位老师的细致建议和批评。
本文引用方式:董皓:“在文化的变迁中保护和促进人权:基于民族文化个案的实证研究”,郑永流主编《法哲学与法社会学论丛》(七),中国政法大学出版社2005,第280-302页,文献获取自:http://www.BlawgDog.com(2007年12月11日最后访问)。
全文(无注释版)可在此处阅读:http://www.xhfm.com/2005/1204/531.html
如需要有注释版,请留言联系我们。
tags:人权,文化,实证研究,少数民族

Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) Notes

Elements of Negligence

  1. Duty of care
  2. Breach
  3. Causation
  4. Injury

Duty of care: foreseeability 

Defendant owes a duty of care to all persons who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct.

  • Don’t as whether a particular defendant could have expected the result.  Instead, ask whether a “reasonable person” could do so
  • Don’t ask if a particular harm is foreseeable. Ask if the category or type of harm is foreseeable

Dillon v. Legg

Background: Prior to this case, only a person who is in the “zone of danger” can be awarded the damages of distress.  This rule applies to the victim’s sister.  However, ther mother was not in the zone of danger despite she had eyewitnessed the accident.

Rule: A defendant’s liability for emotional distress caused to a plaintiff largely depends upon whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable, and foreseeability can be evaluated by considering factors such as:

(1) located near the scene: whether a plaintiff was located near the scene of an accident as opposed to some distance from it,

(2) sensory and contemporaneous observance: whether the shock alleged by the plaintiff resulted from his sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, and

(3) closely related: whether the plaintiff and the victim were closely related, as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or the presence of only a distant relationship.

Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644 (1989)

Rule: A plaintiff may not recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person if she was not an eyewitness to the act that caused the injury.

Facts: The mother was nearby, but did not hear or see the accident.

Reasoning: The guidlines in Dillon should be refined to create greater certainty.

A plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person if, but only if, said plaintiff:

(1) is closely related to the injury victim;

(2) is present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim; and

(3) as a result suffers serious emotional distress-a reaction beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness and which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances.

“Drawing arbitrary lines is unavoidable if we are to limit liability and establish meaningful rules for application by litigants and lower courts.”

Justice Broussard Dissent: foreseeability and duty should determine liability in the case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, as they do in other aspects of tort law.

Goldstein v. Superior Court, 223 Cal.App.3d 1415 (1990)

 

Commerce Clause Tests

Liberal Test:

Legislation is proper under the Commerce Clause if, aggregating all the effects of the legislation, the regulation has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. (Wickard v. Fullburn; Heart of Atlanta Motel)

Developed (added) rule in Gonzales v. Raich:

  • It is irrelevant if the regulated activity is (1) purely local, or (2) not regarded as commerce.
  • If failure to regulate the activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in the commodity, the congress can do so

Conservative Test

It is established in Lopez and Morrison.  The Congress can regulate:

  • Channels of interstate commerce
  • Instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things of interstate commerce
  • actvitivies that substantially affect the interstate commerce

Test for finding “Substantial effect” to the interstate commerce:

(1) Economic activity: is there a direct link between the activity and the interstate commerce? The connection to economic activity cannot be too attenuated (Lopez)

(2) Jurisdictional element: is there a jurisdictional limitation (judicial hook) limiting the (challenged congress regulation) from reaching to activities in interstate commerce

(3) Congressional findings: whether the congress has findings of a substantial effect to the interstate commerce (however, in Morrison, the congressional findings in supporting its regulation has been limited — the final call should be subject to the Court)

(4) Provnice of the states: whether the statute affects areas traditionally left to the states.

The Economic Inactivity Rule

Per NFIB v. Sebelius, Congress can not regulate economic inactivity.

Ginsberg (in her dissent) argued that there are substantial effect from the mandatory insurance to the interstate commerce (they are not annuated).  Ginsberg also argued that even the economic inactivity rule applies, there Congress is not regulating inactivity in this case, as everyone will eventually participate in the health care market.

 

Tests for cases involving Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses

Equal Protection:

Principle: State shall not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Two Step Assessment:

Step One: Suspect Classification, quasi-suspect classification or others?

Suspect Classification:  Race, religion, nation of origin –> Strict scrutiny

– immutable characteristics

– a discrete and insular minority

– historic discrimination

Quasi-suspect classification: gender –> intermediate scrutiny

Others: rational basis

Step Two: Levels of Scrutiny. 

(a) Strict scrutiny: applied to “compelling state interest”

  • the law is necessary to achieve a compelling purpose; no alternative solution
  • the law must be narrowly tailored

(b) Intermediate scrutiny: applied to “important state interest”

  • the law “substantially related” to the state interest

(c) rational basis: applied to “legitimate state interest”

  • reasonably or rationally related to the state interest
  • reasonable means to achieve the puproses

Due Process Clause

1. Substantial due process: Whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life, liberty, or property.

2. Procedural due process: how the government enforces law must be fair. When the state or federal government acts in such a way that denies a citizen of a “life, liberty, or property” interest, the person must first be given notice and the opportunity to be heard

3. Two Step Analysis

Step One: whether the affected is a fundamental right?

Step Two: If yes, strict scrutiny; if not, rational basis.

Finding fundamental rights: in the constitution, about the liberty, autonomy or in the zone of privacy.

Test for finding fundamental rights:

Conservative approach:

  • implicit in the concept of the ordered liberty
  • deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition

List of the recognized fundamenal rights (in addition to those explicitly numerated in the Bill of Rights):

  • right to marry and procreatn (Loving v. Virginia)
  • purchase and use birth control (Grisworld v. Connecticut)
  • custody of one’s own children and raise it as one sees fit (Palmore v. Sidoti)

Liberal approach: right to privacy – things fall into it (zone of penumbra) :

(1) things that are truly private to individual to decide (“Decisional Privacy”); or
(2) things happened in the geographically private places.

4. Strict Scrutiny in the context of due process — same to those in the Equal Protection analysis